Scaling Initiative

[GnomeWorks]

One of the things that irks me about 3.5 - and about pretty much every other edition, too - is that everybody goes once each round. In 3.5, this gets especially bad: you not only know that everybody's going to go once per round, but you know the order in which everybody goes. This can then be abused, in a rather metagamist fashion.

For me, this just doesn't cut it. Some people and critters are just plain-out faster, and the current initiative system just doesn't represent that well. So you go first - after the first round, so what? I mean, the benefit that grants you is rather minimal.

To solve this problem, I have constructed the scaling init system.

Definitions
Speed (SPD): A derived stat, your speed is the rate at which you can react to a situation, and how quickly you can recover from exerting yourself in taking actions. Formula: Dex mod + Haste bonuses.

Weight (WT): A derived stat, weight is how what you are carrying and wearing encumbers you. Formula: A bit complex...

• Your base WT = [(ACP of armor) / 2] + [(ACP of shield) / 2].
• If you are carrying a weapon, add 1 if it's light, 2 if it's one-handed, and 3 if it's two-handed.
• If you are not proficient with your weapon, add the nonproficiency penalty to your WT.
• If you are not proficient with your armor, add its full ACP, instead of half.
• If you are not proficient with your shield, add its full ACP, instead of half.
• If you are encumbered, add the ACP penalty you have due to that.

ATB: The term used to refer to the scaling init's initiative, to avoid confusion with standard initiative, in the set-up phase of the system. If you like, read "ATB" as "initiative" once the conversion is done.

ATB Cost: The cost to take a given action. These are mildly complex formulae, but if each character has them written down and readily accessible, combat goes by about as smoothly as normal init systems do.

Tick: A single increment of the ATB scale. Something that lasts from ATB 20 to ATB 32 is said to last 12 ticks.

The System
At the declaration of combat, or whenever initiative is appropriate, call for initiative, as normal. Write down the inits of everyone involved. You'll either need a spreadsheet program or a rather large sheet of paper, because this system does get a little messy.

Once you're set, find the highest initiative. Set this character's ATB to 0. If two characters are tied, use the normal methods for resolving ties in initaitive, and set the ATB of the loser to 1.

For all other characters, subtract their initiative from the highest initiative. The result is that character's ATB.

Example: Jane and Bob are in a combat with three gobbos. Jane rolls a 17, Bob a 12, gobbo A a 3, gobbo B a 16, and gobbo C gets an 11. Jane has the highest, so she goes in 0; Bob goes in 5, A goes in 14, B goes in 1, and C goes in 6. So the initiative order is Jane, then B, then Bob, then C, then A.

Starting with the lowest ATB (which should be 0), call for each character to act, just as you would with normal initiative.

There are then two options for how to deal with character actions.

• One Action At a Time: After each action, use the table below to determine what you should add to the character's ATB. A character is limited to one action at a time.
• Full Turn of Actions: This functions much like standard 3.5 - the character is allowed a full allotment of actions. Once the character's turn is done, recalculate their ATB based upon all actions the character took.

Regardless of which method you choose, once a character is done acting (whether its one action or his full allotment), add the indicated amount to his ATB. The next character to go is the one with the lowest ATB.

[color=white][b]TABLE: ATB COSTS and WT (v2.1)

		ATB			WT
ACTION		COST			ADD[/b]
Full		+ (20 - SPD)		+ WT
Standard	+ (10 - SPD)		+ (WT / 2)
Move		
  Movement	+ Squares Moved		+ (WT / 4)
  Other		+ (8 - SPD)		+ (WT / 4)
Free		+ 0			+ 0

Immed		+ 2			+ 0
Swift		+ 2 			+ 0[/color]

Actions that are taken outside of your turn (such as immediate actions) still increase your ATB.

Other Ramifications

• Durations: Rather than measuring durations in rounds, measure them in ticks, with each round converting to 20 ticks.
• Unconscious and Dying Characters: An unconscious or dying character automatically adds +20 to their ATB on their turn. Bleeding occurs on a character's turn.
• Multiround Actions: A 1-round action functions just like a full-round action, except that you continue doing things for the entire time until your next turn. For actions that take multiple rounds, treat them as so many full-round actions, with the character continuing to take that action for the duration, rather than on discrete ATB counts.

Thoughts?

 

[sammy]

How about re-rolling initiative each round? That way the faster creatures should be first each round, unless they roll poorly.

This is also only possible in a medium or smaller group of players, larger groups, I believe, would take to long just to roll initiative.

Sammy

 

[GnomeWorks]

How about re-rolling initiative each round? That way the faster creatures should be first each round, unless they roll poorly.

Rerolling for initiative each round makes the time it takes to take an action inconsistent.

Scaling initiative says that once the faster people react, they will always be faster. A highly-dexterous rogue will be able to do more in a round than a fighter in full-plate, because the fighter is weighed down by his armor.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

What do I think?

Honestly, *bleh* I'd flat out refuse to play in a game if this was implemented.

It's just making combat more complicated for no particular reason. You've got a derived stat, another formula for calculating stuff (like you really need to calculate _more_ things in D&D/d20) and you're even introducing new terminology. And you need to have a spreadsheet because the system is "a little messy"? Heck, I don't even own a laptop (although my wife does) and even if I did, I'd be using it for all kinds of other stuff than a spreadsheet to keep track of initiative. It's shades of Exalted rules or something.

As for the "abuse" that can happen under the current system, I gotta say I don't really see it. If you're that concerned, simply invert initiative and force the slowest player to declare first what they're doing, instead of counting down from the fastest player.

I think you'd hate playing in any game I run.

 

[the Jester]

I used something similar back in 2e, but gave it up as too abusable and too much added complexity without any real gain.

 

[Nifft]

With all the source books out there, it's easy to abuse Initiative. The only reason to not do exactly that right now is: going first isn't going to win every fight.

With your system, it suddenly would. Having TWO full-round actions at the start of every fight? Wow.

If you do this, you'll have to severely restrict options which enhance Initiative... at which point, you may as well not do this, because you'll have moved everyone into a much smaller range of initiatives.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Arkhandus]

I'm kinda confused by it. -_-

But I do see one GLARING ERROR. High-speed characters are penalized in this setup, are they not? A barbarian with 40-foot speed who takes a move action to go 40 feet accumulates more of an ATB cost than a normal human with 30-foot speed taking the same action to move 30 feet. Likewise, a monk with 60-foot speed suffers a much greater ATB cost for moving twice as far in essentially half the time as a normal human. Bwuh?

The move-action thing should probably be more a function of movement speed and how much of it was used during that action (since they could move less distance in any given move action, if desired).

The Weight thing doesn't quite make sense to me, either. How exactly does that factor in? Is it supposed to be added to the ATB cost of actions? Is that what the table is supposed to indicate? And shouldn't it be called something like Slowdown or Drag or something instead of Weight?

 

[Folly]

I agree... too confusing.

I am also confused by "So you go first - after the first round, so what?". Either you do not fully understand what going first entails or you do not understand why its so important.

 

[Brimshack]

Actually, I think this is pretty cool, as an intellectual exercise anyway. I doubt I would want to play this out, really. It is a lot of extra complication, especially in a system loaded with extra calculations to begin with.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I used something similar back in 2e, but gave it up as too abusable and too much added complexity without any real gain.

There is a gain, though. The more agile you are, the less gear you're carrying, the faster you go.

It makes monsters - which don't have equipment, so their Weight is 0 - that much more dangerous. Creatures that are rather fast that rely on natural weapons attack you that much more often, making them much more of a threat.

Is it a bit more work? Yeah, I won't lie, it is. But I feel that the small amount of added complexity is worth it.

With your system, it suddenly would. Having TWO full-round actions at the start of every fight? Wow.

If you do this, you'll have to severely restrict options which enhance Initiative... at which point, you may as well not do this, because you'll have moved everyone into a much smaller range of initiatives.

This system was written for what currently amounts to a house-ruled version of d20 in which there is no full attack option (unless you're dual-wielding).

So, admittedly, there may be some holes, so far as core d20 is concerned.

But I do see one GLARING ERROR. High-speed characters are penalized in this setup, are they not? A barbarian with 40-foot speed who takes a move action to go 40 feet accumulates more of an ATB cost than a normal human with 30-foot speed taking the same action to move 30 feet. Likewise, a monk with 60-foot speed suffers a much greater ATB cost for moving twice as far in essentially half the time as a normal human. Bwuh?

That is a bit of an issue, I concur. I'm still trying to work out in my head how to deal with movement; the formula at the moment seems clunky and somewhat counter-intuitive.

The move-action thing should probably be more a function of movement speed and how much of it was used during that action (since they could move less distance in any given move action, if desired).

That would be the goal, yep. Still not sure how to best go about it, though - with the system as complicated as it is already, the formulas for increasing your ATB need to be as simple as possible.

The Weight thing doesn't quite make sense to me, either. How exactly does that factor in? Is it supposed to be added to the ATB cost of actions? Is that what the table is supposed to indicate? And shouldn't it be called something like Slowdown or Drag or something instead of Weight?

Yes, when you take an action, you add the ATB cost of the action + the fraction of WT indicated by the action type.

This method of init was written for a game in which everything, essentially, gives you an ACP, equal to its weight in stones (14 lbs = 1 stone). Rather than call it ACP, since that would imply that it was due to armor, I just renamed it to WT.

I am also confused by "So you go first - after the first round, so what?". Either you do not fully understand what going first entails or you do not understand why its so important.

You missed the point. Yes, going first in a combat gives you quite an advantage, sure. After the first round, though, your initiative is pointless. You will take a turn, then everyone else will go once before you go again. That's where I take issue with the current init setup.

Actually, I think this is pretty cool, as an intellectual exercise anyway. I doubt I would want to play this out, really. It is a lot of extra complication, especially in a system loaded with extra calculations to begin with.

It has been used successfully a couple of times, now. Once you figure out exactly what you need to know to keep the combat going smoothly, its fairly straight-forward; you do need the table of ATB costs handy, but beyond that, you don't need much more information than you do for the normal init system.